dead_find_unused_imports

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. The verb 'Find' implies a read-only analysis operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no files are modified, does not explain whether scanning applies to a single file or an entire directory, and does not describe the output format. These are material gaps for an agent deciding whether this tool is safe to invoke.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It front-loads the operation and resource clearly, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks explicit scope semantics (file vs. directory), an explanation of the api_key parameter, and any indication of what the returned findings look like. An agent may know the general purpose but cannot confidently invoke it correctly across all cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50%; 'directory' is documented in the schema, but 'api_key' has no description anywhere. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and even introduces ambiguity by saying 'in the file' when the actual parameter is a 'Project directory to scan'. This does not compensate for the undocumented api_key parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action, 'Find imported modules and symbols,' and identifies the target resource: unused imports. It distinguishes itself from similar dead-code tools by explicitly mentioning imports, though it does not name sibling tools like dead_find_unused_exports or dead_find_unused_vars. A minor ambiguity is the phrase 'in the file' versus the 'directory' parameter.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dead_find_unused_exports, dead_find_unused_vars, or dead_cleanup_plan. The context is only implied by the tool name and description; no prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.